SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET and 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the diagnostic performance in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- FDG-PET/CT in indeterminate thyroid nodules: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Trial
- Personalised PET imaging in oncology: an umbrella review of meta-analyses to guide the appropriate radiopharmaceutical choice and indication.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Review
- Article
- Reappraising the role of thyroid scintigraphy in the era of TIRADS: A clinically-oriented viewpoint.Endocrine · 2024Review
- Preoperative stratification of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules by [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Personalized Diagnosis in Differentiated Thyroid Cancers by Molecular and Functional Imaging Biomarkers: Present and Future.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsWe performed a meta-analysis to compare F-FDG-PET and F-FDG-PET/CT for the diagnostic performance in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology by Bethesda classification.
methodsPubMed and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies from the earliest available date of indexing through September 2019. Only studies with clearly stated histopathology confirmation were included. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks funnel plot. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic odds ratio was determined by random-effect analysis, respectively. All diagnostic estimate indexes were determined separately for PET alone and PET/CT and were compared pair-wisely using Z-test.
resultsWe included 214 patients from five PET alone studies and 420 patients from 8 PET/CT studies in this meta-analysis. The range of the prevalence of malignancy was 11% to 27% for PET alone studies (Median, 20%) and 4% to 50% for PET/CT studies (Median, 24%). The sensitivity (0.95 vs 0.73, P < .01), negative likelihood ratio (0.20 vs 0.53, P = .04) and negative predictive value (0.99 vs 0.91, P < .01) of PET alone are significantly better than those of PET/CT. For PET/CT, Fagan nomogram indicated that when the pre-test probability was set at 24%, the negative post-test probability could decrease to 12%.
conclusionThis meta-analysis reveals that in evaluating thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology by Bethesda classification, the rule-out performance of F-FDG-PET is significantly better than F-FDG-PET/CT, although the latter represents a more objective and accurate technique. We hypothesize that the lack of precise localization of suspicious FDG uptake in the neck region may have contributed to this overvaluation for PET alone studies, and advocate that future studies be performed with PET/CT rather than PET alone to avoid misinterpretation and overvaluation in this scenario.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.